^ Good post, NatF. It's clear to all non-biased observers that Rosewall's draws were not harder than Federer's.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I thought it would be worth writing out the draws so we could discuss it. I'd happily extend it to looking at other good years of each like 2007 and 2009 for Federer. I am happy to see Bobby excluding at least 2007 from the weak era. Perhaps he acknowledged that Nadal and Djokovic were both strong that year.

Now all I need to do is convince him that 2004 and 2005 were actually good years

That wasn't aggressive or nasty Bobby, please be a little less sensitive.

Nadal was easily playing some prime tennis in 05 and 06 especially on clay.

But let's discuss those years in a little more depth. I hope you won't just gloss over this. Let's also have a look at some of Rosewall's draws - perhaps also confining it to his best years. Considering you pick 3 of Federer's I will look at 3 of Rosewall's namely 61, 62 and 63. I trust you have no objections.

Of the years you mention only 06 could be considered weak, in 2004 these are the players he beat in his slam runs;

Now that is a very solid and strong list of opponents. Most of those guys were playing really good tennis that tournament and in the tune ups. On grass you had Roddick and Hewitt as competition playing their peak tennis. Hard courts there was Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Nalbandian and Safin. On clay you had Moya, Nalbandian, Coria, Gaudio. Plus you had players like Fernando Gonzales, Ljubicic, Joachim Johansson starting to come through. It was a strong year with 7 slam winners in the top 10.

In 2005 he was stopped at the AO by an on fire Safin in one of the great matches of all time. At the French Open Nadal beat Federer in the semi's in a competitive 4 setter. Both strong competition.

Nadal had his break out year and played some great tennis on the clay and also on hardcourts pushing Federer in Miami and winning Montreal and Madrid Indoors. So he was still very strong. Even 19 year old Nadal would certainly be #3 in this era.

2006 was weaker as Roddick (till the end of the year), Hewitt and Safin fell off. But Nadal was still strong on clay and played a good Wimbledon. Good but not great players filled the gap. Even still every great champion often has some weaker draws and wins. I don't think 2006 is enough to devalue the years before it.

AO - Haas, Davydenko, Baghdatis
Wim - Gasquet, Berdych (both young but still talented and tough for 1st and second rounds) and Nadal
USO - Blake, Davydenko and Roddick

So weaker for sure but Roddick and Blake at the USO were playing very well. Nadal was also quite good in 2006 though not at 07/08 levels of course.

--------------

In the early 60's the pro tour was much weaker than it had been previously, Gonzales was semi retired and over 30, Hoad was injured and in Rosewall's best year Laver was a rookie and far from his highest level.

In 1961 at Wembley, Rosewall had to deal with 40 year old Segura (and you call Agassi in 2004/2005 old!), Olmeda and Cooper (both best of 3) before the finals. Now I'm sorry but that's not exactly a tough draw. None of those won more than 4 games in a set against Rosewall, though he was in great form. In the final he of course played Hoad. Immediately that's not a draw that screams tough era to me. A slightly worn out (and injured - back problems) Hoad is still a good finals opponent though.

Rosewall skipped the US pro, at the French Pro he went through Haillet (who I confess I know little about, I must assume he was not particularly noteworthy - Sorry Haillet), Cooper and Segura. Again not a particularly tough draw to the finals on paper but Cooper pushed Rosewall really hard. In the final he met Gonzales, so a good final opponent. So that looks like a better win to me.

Onto 1962, Wembley he went through Anderson, Cooper, Segura and Hoad. The last 3 of those actually pushed Rosewall very hard. So that's a very good win for him I think. Feel free to correct me

The French Pro, Molinari, Buchholz, Cooper and Gimeno. A solid group of players for sure though it's my personal opinion that this group is certainly no better than many of the players Federer went through in his slam runs in 04/05. Plus it was only 4 rounds as opposed to 7.

In 1963, Rosewall swept the pro majors although I don't give it quite as much significance as you do considering Federer won 3 majors in a year 3 times. Connors, Wilanda, Nadal and Djokovic have also won 3 slams in a year.

At Wembley he only had to win 3 matches and only 2 best of 5 set matches. Trabert and Olmedo were his first 2 opponents. Then he faced Hoad for the third time in 3 years. I don't rate this one tbh. Yes he faced Hoad but he only played 3 matches. Hoad was also tired from his semi with Buchholz an epic 5 setter. This is only better than Federer's 2006 AO IMO.

At the USO pro Rosewall went through just 3 rounds, beating Trabert, Olmedo and Laver (who was clearly a rookie at this point). I don't think beating up on rookie Laver is so impressive. Likewise I'm sure you'd devalue Federer beating Nadal in 2006 at Wimbledon. But Federer at least played 7 rounds.

The French Pro was again only 3 matches for Rosewall, but he faced Hoad and Laver back to back. Laver showed how much he had improved and had chances to win the match but Rosewall was too strong in the fifth. Good win for the final 2 opponents but only 3 rounds.

I really don't see how Rosewall's 'peak years' were any better than Federer's. He played mostly the same opponents every pro major and these guys aren't exactly all-time greats and if they were they were getting into advanced years. There were of course some great wins but I think Federer's 04/05 draws hold up very well, especially considering all of those were 7 rounds best of 5 (with the occasional walkover).

I hope my effort to discuss the details of their draws and victories isn't wasted on your Bobby, please don't just post a few lines with broad disagreements.

Your considering Federer's conquerors as assets in his career sounds a bit ironic: Roger LOST to them while Rosewall did not lose to any opponents in big events from 1960 to 1963...

Gonzalez was not semi-retired in 1961: In fact he played much more than Rosewall.

Laver in the second part of 1963 was NOT far from his highest level. Just ask Laver admirer, pc1...

Hoad was not worn out or significantly more injured than in the end-1950s.

Yes, I call old Agassi old (No.8 and 7 at that time). And I claim that Segura at 40/41 was a very tough player (ranked No.5 and 4). On clay Pancho Segura was arguably No.2 in the world!
And you and other Federer worshippers like abmk claim that Federer at 27/28 was declining...

The fact Rosewall beat Olmedo and Cooper easily is NOT a proof they were weak players. Where is your logic, young man?

Laver clearly a rookie at the 1963 US Pro? No way.

Facit: You have a wrong picture of tennis history. Please stay at modern tennis!

I'm not overrating Federer's opponents, all those players are good players it was a point considering depth not top competition. Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson did very little in the pro ranks. Olmedo won the US pro with a pretty tiny and weak draw. Certainy a weaker opponent than most of Federer's top contemporaries.

Thus you come to wrong conclusions.

Click to expand...

Your considering Federer's conquerors as assets in his career sounds a bit ironic: Roger LOST to them while Rosewall did not lose to any opponents in big events from 1960 to 1963...

Click to expand...

This is a question of competition, I'm pointing out Federer had tough opponents. Federer played more big events than Rosewall, if he just played Wimbledon and the USO he would have been undefeated also.

Gonzalez was not semi-retired in 1961: In fact he played much more than Rosewall.

Laver in the second part of 1963 was NOT far from his highest level. Just ask Laver admirer, pc1...

Click to expand...

I didn't say Gonzales was semi retired for the whole period but he played only one pro major in a 2 year span from 1962 to 1963.

Laver was at his best when Rosewall straight setted him for the lost of 8 games? The fact is even by the end of the year Laver still had some ways to go.

Hoad was not worn out or significantly more injured than in the end-1950s.

Click to expand...

You need only to read match reports of some of his finals versus Rosewall to see he was 'sluggish'. He had also had some back problems by then. He wasn't at his best in the matches I mentioned.

Yes, I call old Agassi old (No.8 and 7 at that time). And I claim that Segura at 40/41 was a very tough player (ranked No.5 and 4). On clay Pancho Segura was arguably No.2 in the world!
And you and other Federer worshippers like abmk claim that Federer at 27/28 was declining...

Click to expand...

Agassi played fewer matches which is why his ranked dipped, he was still a very tough player also. Though almost exclusively on hard courts. Federer had mono in 2008 which caused a decline that year, he was better again in 2009. Losing a step or some motivation getting closer to 30 is normal for a lot of great players.

The fact Rosewall beat Olmedo and Cooper easily is NOT a proof they were weak players. Where is your logic, young man?

Click to expand...

Where is your logic that Federer's contemporaries were weak? The fact is guys like Cooper were just there to fill in the numbers for the most part. He made a few semi's of pro majors which isn't a great feat but that's all.

Laver clearly a rookie at the 1963 US Pro? No way.

Click to expand...

He still in his first (rookie) year as a pro yes?

Facit: You have a wrong picture of tennis history. Please stay at modern tennis!

Click to expand...

Nah, don't think so. 40 year old Segura being #2 on clay but that's a strong era lol. We can at least say that Federer had much tougher clay competition with Nadal

Bobby, Anderson is a US Champion, but an amateur champion 1957. Anderson beat Luis Ayala in the QF, some Davidson in the SF and Cooper in the final. Cooper himself reached the final by going through Patty and Flam. I believe that in 1957 the best players in the world were Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Kramer? The same is true for Cooper.

I guess that Baghdatis, Blake, Ljubicic and many other solid players could have won slams in the mid 2000's in the absence of 5-6 of the very best players.

So it is dishonest to acclaim Cooper and Anderson as slam winners and dismiss Gonzales and Baghdatis because they are not. Baghdatis and Gonzales played against a full field, Cooper and Anderson player against a field depleted of several ultra-dominant all time great! By the way, when Cooper had to go through pro instead of amateur, his results weren't the same any more!

Another point which comes mainly form other posts of yours. You often doesn't mention Nadal as Federer's competition in the mid 2000's, or dismiss him as not important because still developing. You leave out that they played a lot between 2004-2008, and you also leave out that Nadal was the number 2 in the world with a huge margin as soon as 2005, when we won 11 tournaments, including RG, 2 clay masters 1000 and 2 hard-court masters 1000.

Your main argument is the following: Nadal can be neglected among Federer's competition because he was still developing, which is shown by the better results he would have on HC and Grass in later years.

Yet, you do not apply the same rule for Rosewall and Laver in the early 60's. You do not consider that Laver is a negligible opponent in the early 60's, despite the fact that he was a new pro who was going to be a lot better in the following years.

So both Federer and Rosewall have very similar "strength of opposition" trajectories. In their most dominant years, both of them competed against past their prime or injured opponents (Gonzales, Hoad, Segura, Agassi, Hewitt), contemporaries players who were stiffled by them, and all-time great who weren't in full flight yet (Laver, Djokovic, Nadal). Both of them would struggle against these younger opponent, either as a result of them being inferior, or them being older.

Yet you continue to mention Baghdatis as one of Federer main competitor in his peak instead of Nadal and acclaim Cooper as a huge titan of tennis because he won some amateurs slams in the absence of the true titans of tennis.

I'm not overrating Federer's opponents, all those players are good players it was a point considering depth not top competition. Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson did very little in the pro ranks. Olmedo won the US pro with a pretty tiny and weak draw. Certainy a weaker opponent than most of Federer's top contemporaries.

This is a question of competition, I'm pointing out Federer had tough opponents. Federer played more big events than Rosewall, if he just played Wimbledon and the USO he would have been undefeated also.

I didn't say Gonzales was semi retired for the whole period but he played only one pro major in a 2 year span from 1962 to 1963.

Laver was at his best when Rosewall straight setted him for the lost of 8 games? The fact is even by the end of the year Laver still had some ways to go.

You need only to read match reports of some of his finals versus Rosewall to see he was 'sluggish'. He had also had some back problems by then. He wasn't at his best in the matches I mentioned.

Agassi played fewer matches which is why his ranked dipped, he was still a very tough player also. Though almost exclusively on hard courts. Federer had mono in 2008 which caused a decline that year, he was better again in 2009. Losing a step or some motivation getting closer to 30 is normal for a lot of great players.

Where is your logic that Federer's contemporaries were weak? The fact is guys like Cooper were just there to fill in the numbers for the most part. He made a few semi's of pro majors which isn't a great feat but that's all.

He still in his first (rookie) year as a pro yes?

Nah, don't think so. 40 year old Segura being #2 on clay but that's a strong era lol. We can at least say that Federer had much tougher clay competition with Nadal

Click to expand...

NatF, I have asked you to focus on modern tennis...

Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson did not do very little in the pro ranks: Olmedo: US Pro, Cooper: European GP, Anderson: Wembley!!

How strong Anderson was you can see if you know that Mal beat peak Newcombe twice in 1972/73 when he was already 37/38. Anderson even had two matchpoints against peak Connors in 1974 when being semi-retired and already 39!

The three "weak" players had also Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad and Laver as tough opponents...

Gonzalez in 1962/63 was virtually retired.

I did not say Laver was at his best at the 1963 US Pro. He was very strong then and lost to Rosewall clearly as he also did two years later in the 1965 US Pro...

Hoad had always back problems...

Cooper was there to fill in the numbers: Are you kiki 2 ???

Laver was not anymore a rookie pro when losing to Rosewall in mid-1963. He had improved already a lot.

40 years old Segura was great on clay. He had Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Hoad, Cooper and Trabert as very strong opponents on clay!

Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson did not do very little in the pro ranks: Olmedo: US Pro, Cooper: European GP, Anderson: Wembley!!

Click to expand...

I did not know that Anderson won Wembley. Impressive that he went through Rosewall, still not an all-time great though. He didn't make another final at a major for 13 years after that anyway. Olmedo has a weak draw to get his US pro. Enlighten me about the European GP what is impressive about that? Guys like Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC and multiple masters. I don't see any superiority from the 60's crop.

How strong Anderson was you can see if you know that Mal beat peak Newcombe twice in 1972/73 when he was already 37/38. Anderson even had two matchpoints against peak Connors in 1974 when being semi-retired and already 39!

Click to expand...

And Darcis beat Nadal at Wimbledon at 29 etc...winning the odd match is all well and good. But unless he was winning tournaments against those guys it doesn't say much. Did he win those tournaments?

The three "weak" players had also Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad and Laver as tough opponents...

Click to expand...

Yes...but this says nothing about their strength. The point is not that they were bad players. It's that they weren't better than Federer's second tier competition.

Gonzalez in 1962/63 was virtually retired.

Click to expand...

Which is essentially what I said.

I did not say Laver was at his best at the 1963 US Pro. He was very strong then and lost to Rosewall clearly as he also did two years later in the 1965 US Pro...

Click to expand...

I'm not going about how strong exactly Laver was, the fact is he was still improved as he was even in years like 1964 where he clearly dominated Rosewall.

Hoad had always back problems...

Click to expand...

You don't believe he had this problems or you don't believe he was hindered by them? You jump on anyone that questions Nadal's fitness yet deny Hoad was hampered by back problems?

Cooper was there to fill in the numbers: Are you kiki 2 ???

Click to expand...

I don't either of us (kiki and myself) are happy with that comparison

Laver was not anymore a rookie pro when losing to Rosewall in mid-1963. He had improved already a lot.

Click to expand...

Improved a lot but had a long way to go still.

40 years old Segura was great on clay. He had Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Hoad, Cooper and Trabert as very strong opponents on clay!

Click to expand...

Near 30 year old Trabert and 40 years old Segura, Cooper who made just one semi at the French pro. Gonzales only played the French Pro a few times. Were there some other major clay tournaments which he proved his mettle on?

Bobby, Anderson is a US Champion, but an amateur champion 1957. Anderson beat Luis Ayala in the QF, some Davidson in the SF and Cooper in the final. Cooper himself reached the final by going through Patty and Flam. I believe that in 1957 the best players in the world were Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Kramer? The same is true for Cooper.

I guess that Baghdatis, Blake, Ljubicic and many other solid players could have won slams in the mid 2000's in the absence of 5-6 of the very best players.

So it is dishonest to acclaim Cooper and Anderson as slam winners and dismiss Gonzales and Baghdatis because they are not. Baghdatis and Gonzales played against a full field, Cooper and Anderson player against a field depleted of several ultra-dominant all time great! By the way, when Cooper had to go through pro instead of amateur, his results weren't the same any more!

Another point which comes mainly form other posts of yours. You often doesn't mention Nadal as Federer's competition in the mid 2000's, or dismiss him as not important because still developing. You leave out that they played a lot between 2004-2008, and you also leave out that Nadal was the number 2 in the world with a huge margin as soon as 2005, when we won 11 tournaments, including RG, 2 clay masters 1000 and 2 hard-court masters 1000.

Your main argument is the following: Nadal can be neglected among Federer's competition because he was still developing, which is shown by the better results he would have on HC and Grass in later years.

Yet, you do not apply the same rule for Rosewall and Laver in the early 60's. You do not consider that Laver is a negligible opponent in the early 60's, despite the fact that he was a new pro who was going to be a lot better in the following years.

So both Federer and Rosewall have very similar "strength of opposition" trajectories. In their most dominant years, both of them competed against past their prime or injured opponents (Gonzales, Hoad, Segura, Agassi, Hewitt), contemporaries players who were stiffled by them, and all-time great who weren't in full flight yet (Laver, Djokovic, Nadal). Both of them would struggle against these younger opponent, either as a result of them being inferior, or them being older.

Yet you continue to mention Baghdatis as one of Federer main competitor in his peak instead of Nadal and acclaim Cooper as a huge titan of tennis because he won some amateurs slams in the absence of the true titans of tennis.

Click to expand...

Flash, I just did not want to read your post further after you had written "some Davidson"! You should know that Sven Davidson from Sweden was an all-time great claycourter: No.3 in 1957 (amateurs), French Champion in 1957, twice runner-up there (to Trabert and Hoad), the best Swede prior to Borg...

Nadal was only 19 when fighting against Federer in 2005, Laver was already 24 plus when playing against pro Rosewall in 1963. Big difference of these rookies.

You say it yourself: "result of being inferior (Federer to Nadal, Roger was only 29) or getting older" (Rosewall to Laver, Muscles was already 33 when Laver dominated him clearly).

I never claimed that Cooper was a titan! Just an excellent player who almost made the Grand Slam in 1958...

I did not know that Anderson won Wembley. Impressive that he went through Rosewall, still not an all-time great though. He didn't make another final at a major for 13 years after that anyway. Olmedo has a weak draw to get his US pro. Enlighten me about the European GP what is impressive about that? Guys like Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC and multiple masters. I don't see any superiority from the 60's crop.

And Darcis beat Nadal at Wimbledon at 29 etc...winning the odd match is all well and good. But unless he was winning tournaments against those guys it doesn't say much. Did he win those tournaments?

Yes...but this says nothing about their strength. The point is not that they were bad players. It's that they weren't better than Federer's second tier competition.

Which is essentially what I said.

I'm not going about how strong exactly Laver was, the fact is he was still improved as he was even in years like 1964 where he clearly dominated Rosewall.

You don't believe he had this problems or you don't believe he was hindered by them? You jump on anyone that questions Nadal's fitness yet deny Hoad was hampered by back problems?

I don't either of us (kiki and myself) are happy with that comparison

Improved a lot but had a long way to go still.

Near 30 year old Trabert and 40 years old Segura, Cooper who made just one semi at the French pro. Gonzales only played the French Pro a few times. Were there some other major clay tournaments which he proved his mettle on?

I'm enjoying you trying to pass off 40 year old players as excellent competition while belittling the likes of Agassi who was 6-5 years younger when he competed with Federer.

Click to expand...

NatF, You are too nasty and aggressive to me. Reason is that you have a prejudice towards me, and , like abmk, you are fighting EVERY word I write to you. The last time for a good while I will answer you. Remember you were on my ignore list already earlier. pc1 would say:" it's not worth to answer" (you).

I hated that you use words like "rubbish" and "foolish" towards me.

I have not studied tennis (history) for more than 40 years to be treated as a schoolboy by a 23 years old and by other Federer fanatics!

It's significant you did not know Anderson's biggest achievement where he beat Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in a row!

Anderson semi-retired after 1966, thus his "poor" record from 1967 to 1971.

Cooper won the European Grand Prix over Gimeno, Anderson and Segura. You had claimed Cooper did little.

Anderson, Cooper and Olmedo, while strong players , were just the second echelon at the pros. The first echelon were Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura and Gimeno. Buchholz between them.

Mal Anderson did win the 1973 HSW Championships with wins against Newcombe and Rosewall. At 38...

You can't await that a 39 years old Anderson wins a tournament where peak Connors is involved.

"semi-retired" is not "virtually retired". Be correct!

You had "asked" me if Laver was in best form when he was crushed by Rosewall in the US Pro. Now you write you are not going about how strong Laver was...Stay logical and honest!!

In 1964 Laver did NOT clearly dominate Rosewall! Rosewall was the official No.1. Furthermore Laver won at Wembley in tough five sets when a few net-cords decided the match. At the US Pro Muscles was handicapped by a food-poisoning.

You try to misunderstand my words: I wrote that Hoad was always hampered by his back injury (already in his amateur years) and not even more in the early 1960s...

NatF, You are too nasty and aggressive to me. Reason is that you have a prejudice towards me, and , like abmk, you are fighting EVERY word I write to you. The last time for a good while I will answer you. Remember you were on my ignore list already earlier. pc1 would say:" it's not worth to answer" (you).

Click to expand...

I have a prejudice to your ********. Like you going into that thread on Aesthetic shots and writing this...

Don't post like a fool then. Your constant belittling of my favorite player grates on me.

I have not studied tennis (history) for more than 40 years to be treated as a schoolboy by a 23 years old and by other Federer fanatics!

Click to expand...

Try to have some semblance of objectivity then.

It's significant you did not know Anderson's biggest achievement where he beat Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in a row!

Click to expand...

Impressive. Nalbandian won the YEC beating Federer and won 2 masters going through Djokovic, Nadal and Federer in a row and then again Nadal and Federer in the same tournament. So maybe Anderson is worth including next to Nalbandian

Anderson semi-retired after 1966, thus his "poor" record from 1967 to 1971.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that era isn't so strong that a man can 'semi-retire' and still come back at do very well at age 38+. Even much better players than Anderson wouldn't be able to do that in this era.

Cooper won the European Grand Prix over Gimeno, Anderson and Segura. You had claimed Cooper did little.

Click to expand...

One big title is little really...

He made 3 semi's at the pro majors in draws where you only have to win a couple of matches max to get there.

Anderson, Cooper and Olmedo, while strong players , were just the second echelon at the pros. The first echelon were Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura and Gimeno. Buchholz between them.

Click to expand...

Yes but their records aren't really better than many players who were around in Federer's era this is the second echelon. Hoad was somewhat hindered by injuries and Gonzales was semi-retired. Hoad actually improved again in 1963 because he wanted to play Laver.

You can't await that a 39 years old Anderson wins a tournament where peak Connors is involved.

Click to expand...

Sometimes these peak champions lose early because they're not really invested in going all the way.

"semi-retired" is not "virtually retired". Be correct!

Click to expand...

Semantics. The point is he wasn't a constant force anymore.

You had "asked" me if Laver was in best form when he was crushed by Rosewall in the US Pro. Now you write you are not going about how strong Laver was...Stay logical and honest!!

Click to expand...

Yes I asked you if he was in his best form, the answer is no. In 1963 he was as many years from his best form/year as Nadal was from his in 05/06 really.

1967 for Rod and 2010 for Rafa's, though some think 2008 was his best year.

In 1964 Laver did NOT clearly dominate Rosewall! Rosewall was the official No.1. Furthermore Laver won at Wembley in tough five sets when a few net-cords decided the match. At the US Pro Muscles was handicapped by a food-poisoning.

Click to expand...

Circumstances aside Laver still won those matches, he won 2 majors to 1, dominated the h2h and won 11 titles to 10 IIRC. Under most systems he would probably be considered #1 for the year. By the same token Rosewall won 2 majors in 1965, so perhaps the official rankings should switch I don't know.

You try to misunderstand my words: I wrote that Hoad was always hampered by his back injury (already in his amateur years) and not even more in the early 1960s...

Click to expand...

I don't try to misunderstand anything. Write more clearly or don't complain when someone misunderstands you.

Trabert at 30/31 was still very tough on clay.

Segura won several strong claycourt tournaments when being 40/41.

Click to expand...

Yet you don't think Agassi could be very strong on hard courts still at an age between those players?

Yes, I know he has studied tennis history for many years and written a few books (published privately and which hardly anyone has read).

However, I could do the same thing, starting today at age 30, and write privately published books with minute details on the careers of Sampras and Federer....and then 35 years later, get into endless arguments with much younger posters on forums because I am retired and live alone.

None of this would make me a true, objective historian.

There are many true tennis historians and experts, many of whom are well known.

BobbyOne a.k.a. (can't write his real name) is a fraud, a Rosewall and Nuesslein fanatic posing as a true historian, both in the real world and online!

You will notice that I never reply directly to him any more, because he is not a serious person (although he claims to be) and is not worth talking to!

Yes, I know he has studied tennis history for many years and written a few books (published privately and which hardly anyone has read).

However, I could do the same thing, starting today at age 30, and write privately published books with minute details on the careers of Sampras and Federer....and then 35 years later, get into endless arguments with much younger posters on forums because I am retired and live alone.

None of this would make me a true, objective historian.

There are many true tennis historians and experts, many of whom are well known.

BobbyOne a.k.a. (can't write his real name) is a fraud, a Rosewall and Nuesslein fanatic posing as a true historian, both in the real world and online!

You will notice that I never reply directly to him any more, because he is not a serious person (although he claims to be) and is not worth talking to!

Click to expand...

1983, My Rosewall book was quoted in the New York Times. It was a significant source for the Rosewall articles on Muscles in Wikipedia as well.

As you know, a certain Bud Collins has called me ( and written so) the Vienna Visionary and the Authoritative Austrian. Imagine what he would call you.... Other historians like McCauley, Bowers, Little and Metzler have appreciated my work...

1983, My Rosewall book was quoted in the New York Times. It was a significant source for the Rosewall articles on Muscles in Wikipedia as well.

As you know, a certain Bud Collins has called me ( and written so) the Vienna Visionary and the Authoritative Austrian. Imagine what he would call you.... Other historians like McCauley, Bowers, Little and Metzler have appreciated my work...

Just a last question: As you have told us posting on TT is just a GAME for you- why then do you write annoying and nasty things?????

Click to expand...

You can think of yourself as an objective historian, but who you truly are is a person stuck in '50s and '60s, with a nasty (negative) obsession with Federer, who considers every single before-open-era-professional tennis player as an all time great, putting everyone who played tennis after '68, in Open era, in second tier.
Which is tolerable, because it's your choice and personal preference...until the moment (which happens basically always) when you star to bash anyone who doesn't support your superiority theories" of '50s and '60s (actually Rosewall's) tennis player(s) over today's.

You can think of yourself as an objective historian, but who you truly are is a person stuck in '50s and '60s, with a nasty (negative) obsession with Federer, who considers every single before-open-era-professional tennis player as an all time great, putting everyone who played tennis after '68, in Open era, in second tier.
Which is tolerable, because it's your choice and personal preference...until the moment (which happens basically always) when you star to bash anyone who doesn't support your superiority theories" of '50s and '60s (actually Rosewall's) tennis player(s) over today's.

Click to expand...

Martin J, If you would read my posts you would know that I don't put everyone who played after 1968 in second tier!

I put in first tier Laver, Rosewall and Borg. All of them played after 1968. Learn tennis history!

absolutely hilarious and at the same time pathetic to see someone saying 40 year segura was so strong, yet denying that 35 year old agassi could play some great tennis on hard courts .. only in the la la land of BobbyOne ...

absolutely hilarious and at the same time pathetic to see someone saying 40 year segura was so strong, yet denying that 35 year old agassi could play some great tennis on hard courts .. only in the la la land of BobbyOne ...

Yes, I know he has studied tennis history for many years and written a few books (published privately and which hardly anyone has read).

However, I could do the same thing, starting today at age 30, and write privately published books with minute details on the careers of Sampras and Federer....and then 35 years later, get into endless arguments with much younger posters on forums because I am retired and live alone.

None of this would make me a true, objective historian.

There are many true tennis historians and experts, many of whom are well known.

BobbyOne a.k.a. (can't write his real name) is a fraud, a Rosewall and Nuesslein fanatic posing as a true historian, both in the real world and online!

You will notice that I never reply directly to him any more, because he is not a serious person (although he claims to be) and is not worth talking to!

Click to expand...

Yeah. He knows a lot about history. But it's a shame he doesn't know a lot about the present tennis. And he is very biased towards the past. I guess, excluding past 20 years, it's amazing to listen to him. But when it comes to the present tennis, I take everything with a grain of salt.

Seriously, how can I take someone seriously, when they exclude Fed from the top 5 list? I mean, what on Earth?

The guy has all important open era records. And every tournament when top 10 shots are featured, usually almost half are from Fed. This is just crazy.

Yeah. He knows a lot about history. But it's a shame he doesn't know a lot about the present tennis. And he is very biased towards the past. I guess, excluding past 20 years, it's amazing to listen to him. But when it comes to the present tennis, I take everything with a grain of salt.

Seriously, how can I take someone seriously, when they exclude Fed from the top 5 list? I mean, what on Earth?

The guy has all important open era records. And every tournament when top 10 shots are featured, usually almost half are from Fed. This is just crazy.

Click to expand...

I must contradict you: I don't know about tennis history. As Phoenix1983 said: I am a fraud!

Esther Mary Vergeer won 42 Grand Slam tournaments, 22 year-end championships, and 7 Paralympics titles. Vergeer was the world number one wheel-chair tennis player from 1999 to 2013. In singles matches, she has been undefeated from January 2003 till her retirement, and ended her career on a winning streak of 470 matches.

She is often mentioned as the most dominant player in professional sports.

jg, Not all the shots? Worse footwork? Federer faster? Now it's clear: You never saw a Rosewall or Laver match!

Click to expand...

I didn't say faster in speed. But racket/hand acceleration. Also not by much, the differences are very small.

And some ballet teacher once analyzed Fed's movement and proved Fed uses the best bio-mechanics.

I saw their matches only on internet/tv. I never saw Fed live either. But I can still see the difference to the naked eye. Also, Laver himself put Fed as the best of modern tennis and I think Rosewall as best of pre-modern tennis.

What makes you think those guys are better than Federer? Give me some details.

I didn't say faster in speed. But racket/hand acceleration. Also not by much, the differences are very small.

And some ballet teacher once analyzed Fed's movement and proved Fed uses the best bio-mechanics.

I saw their matches only on internet/tv. I never saw Fed live either. But I can still see the difference to the naked eye. Also, Laver himself put Fed as the best of modern tennis and I think Rosewall as best of pre-modern tennis.

What makes you think those guys are better than Federer? Give me some details.[/QUOTE

jg, It was you who claimed Federer is better than the older players. I just contradicted. It's your turn to prove your claim. You wrote Federer is faster.

Rosewall was famous for his prefect footwork. Laver was famous for his acceleration of his hand and wrist when making his feared top spin shots.
.

I didn't say faster in speed. But racket/hand acceleration. Also not by much, the differences are very small.

And some ballet teacher once analyzed Fed's movement and proved Fed uses the best bio-mechanics.

I saw their matches only on internet/tv. I never saw Fed live either. But I can still see the difference to the naked eye. Also, Laver himself put Fed as the best of modern tennis and I think Rosewall as best of pre-modern tennis.

What makes you think those guys are better than Federer? Give me some details.

I didn't say faster in speed. But racket/hand acceleration. Also not by much, the differences are very small.

And some ballet teacher once analyzed Fed's movement and proved Fed uses the best bio-mechanics.

I saw their matches only on internet/tv. I never saw Fed live either. But I can still see the difference to the naked eye. Also, Laver himself put Fed as the best of modern tennis and I think Rosewall as best of pre-modern tennis.

What makes you think those guys are better than Federer? Give me some details.[/QUOTE

jg, It was you who claimed Federer is better than the older players. I just contradicted. It's your turn to prove your claim. You wrote Federer is faster.

Rosewall was famous for his prefect footwork. Laver was famous for his acceleration of his hand and wrist when making his feared top spin shots.
.

Click to expand...

But their racket acceleration wasn't as fast as Rafa/Fed. That is a fact and can be proven even by the naked eye.

Although at such speeds, difference isn't that great.

Also, let's assume you are right. Just for the sake of the argument. Why would players today be worse? You don't believe in evolution. What, is it devolution? Don't people train more and have more muscle and use better nutrition and training methods?

Esther Mary Vergeer won 42 Grand Slam tournaments, 22 year-end championships, and 7 Paralympics titles. Vergeer was the world number one wheel-chair tennis player from 1999 to 2013. In singles matches, she has been undefeated from January 2003 till her retirement, and ended her career on a winning streak of 470 matches.

She is often mentioned as the most dominant player in professional sports.

he is the greatest tennis player ever but in other sports guys have dominated more and longer.

muhammad ali, babe ruth, michael jordan, michael phelps and lebron james dominated for over a decade and never had a nemesis like nadal.
federer on the other hand dominated for 4 years and then was dominated by nadal while still being in his mid 20s.

you just can't compare that to jordan or ruth who dominated the game till their late 30s (yes I know it is a team sport).

if you don't like team sports muhammad ali was unbeaten from age 19-28, then lost to joe frazier then he lost only one more fight till 1978 when he was 36.

tennis is not as age friendly but fed would have needed to continue dominating like in his peak years at least till 2012 (when he was just 30) to be considered equal to Ali or jordan.

he is the greatest tennis player ever but in other sports guys have dominated more and longer.

muhammad ali, babe ruth, michael jordan, michael phelps and lebron james dominated for over a decade and never had a nemesis like nadal.
federer on the other hand dominated for 4 years and then was dominated by nadal while still being in his mid 20s.

you just can't compare that to jordan or ruth who dominated the game till their late 30s (yes I know it is a team sport).

Click to expand...

But that's not fair to compare. In tennis there are different courts and conditions. In basket and boxing and swimming it's one court and set of conditions. Easier to dominate in less dimensions.

And comparing Jordan and Babe when they have a team of greats to back them up and help them?

I would add Laver to the list of best footwork. Sampras has amazing footwork, I thought for a while Pete was the best. Until I saw Fed and Laver.

Also, on clay Rafa should be right there at the top. I think his clay footwork is amazing and underrated.

Click to expand...

Nadal has great footwork, but I favor Federer's compared to his when considering slicker surfaces like grass and blue clay . Nadal has more explosive movement. which combined with his still stellar footwork makes him a better mover.

Nadal has great footwork, but I favor Federer's compared to his when considering slicker surfaces like grass and blue clay . Nadal has more explosive movement. which combined with his still stellar footwork makes him a better mover.

Click to expand...

Fed is the blue clay goat. Nobody can dispute that.

But in general on clay, I'd say Rafa and Fed are equal. Maybe Rafa even a bit better. Fed is smoother, but is a bit slower compared to Nadal and doesn't slide as well.

Rafa on clay is explosive, faster and slides like on water. It's great to see. Also, Nadal's anticipation on clay is great. I also rarely see Rafa out of balance on clay. But even when he is, he is so explosive and can still turn the point around.

muhammad ali, babe ruth, michael jordan, michael phelps and lebron james dominated for over a decade and never had a nemesis like nadal.
federer on the other hand dominated for 4 years and then was dominated by nadal while still being in his mid 20s.

Click to expand...

You can't compare sports on an equivalent basis like this... Each sport has a general competitive lifespan and extended/unique ones. For tennis it's about 10 years and then 15 for a unique one. For golf however it's 25 years plus, more in unique cases. For boxing it can be anywhere from 5 years to 20.

Similarly if you were implying Jordan dominated more and for longer then we could just as easily look at it another way. He dominated more because he competed in a weak era? The argument seems to fit for Federer haters so why not Jordan? The fact he was so dominant and picked up so many MVPs surely must have relied at least in part on him playing in a weak era? :wink:

Jordan also didn't dominate for longer than Federer in another key way: He only won 6 NBA championships - which are the pinnacle of a basketball career. The comparable metric in tennis is (historically at least) a Wimbledon title, of which Federer has 7.

There are a myriad of ways to compare sports-people and all have flaws. But to merely point at someone like Jordan as say he was this or that without putting his career under the same brutal scrutiny that is levelled at Federer's is hardly doing the topic justice... and that's not even starting on the other detail, that team sports are generally for athletes who are great in one, two or maybe three areas but are very often sorely lacking otherwise (mentally especially) - in contrast to tennis players who have to be good at pretty much everything to get anywhere at the top of the game.

You can't compare sports on an equivalent basis like this... Each sport has a general competitive lifespan and extended/unique ones. For tennis it's about 10 years and then 15 for a unique one. For golf however it's 25 years plus, more in unique cases. For boxing it can be anywhere from 5 years to 20.

Similarly if you were implying Jordan dominated more and for longer then we could just as easily look at it another way. He dominated more because he competed in a weak era? The argument seems to fit for Federer haters so why not Jordan? The fact he was so dominant and picked up so many MVPs surely must have relied at least in part on him playing in a weak era? :wink:

Jordan also didn't dominate for longer than Federer in another key way: He only won 6 NBA championships - which are the pinnacle of a basketball career. The comparable metric in tennis is (historically at least) a Wimbledon title, of which Federer has 7.

There are a myriad of ways to compare sports-people and all have flaws. But to merely point at someone like Jordan as say he was this or that without putting his career under the same brutal scrutiny that is levelled at Federer's is hardly doing the topic justice... and that's not even starting on the other detail, that team sports are generally for athletes who are great in one, two or maybe three areas but are very often sorely lacking otherwise (mentally especially) - in contrast to tennis players who have to be good at pretty much everything to get anywhere at the top of the game.

Click to expand...

The thing is dominating in tennis is much harder. In boxing there is one court always the same light and no wind. In less dimensions it's easier to dominate. You only need to distance yourself in one category from the pack and you will dominate.

But in tennis it's like we have several sub categories. Almost different sports. We have such different surfaces and balls change. Also the heat factor and wind and light. And we have elimination in tennis. In basket you can lose a match and still win a tournament. In tennis you can't.

Also in tennis you are on your own. You don't get coaching, nobody can replace you when tired or injured or bear a mental burden for you.